ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1. This application is filed for condoning the delay of 262 days in preferring cross objections in the Appeal preferred by the respondent No.3 against the order dated 11.04.2023 in OLR No.136 of 2019.

2. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that as such there is no delay in filing the cross objections as the applicant was bonafide agitating the issue by filing a Review Application which came to be decided only on 28-06-2024 in MCA (for Modification) No.1/2023. The cross objections were filed the very next day. Hence, no delay.

2.1 It is submitted that however, in view of the office objection raised by the Registry, the present application is filed.

2.2 It is argued that even if the delay is there, then also, it may be construed liberally as the applicant had filed a Review/ Modification application within time in the order impugned by the respondent No.3, so that much period is required to be condoned.

2.3 It is also argued by relying upon O-41, R-21 of the Civil Procedure Code that the period of limitation would start running only after a formal notice is issued by the Court and served upon other side. In the facts of the case, in the appeal preferred by respondent No.3, as on date, the applicant is not even served with the notice and therefore also, the cross-objections preferred is within the period of limitation.

3. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent has opposed the delay application on the ground that the provisions of O-41, R-21 will not come to the rescue of the applicant, particularly as the sub-rule itself provides that wherever the parties have appeared before the Court, in that case, the issue with regard to serving of notice will not remain and therefore, the period of limitation had started running from the date on which learned Advocate for the respondent appeared before the Court.

3.1 Learned Advocate for the respondent has thereafter argued that filing of the cross-objections is nothing but duplication of already the point which is agitated as the appellant has preferred a separate appeal against order dated 28.06.2024 passed in MCA (for modification of order) No.1 of 2023.

3.2 It is also submitted that the filing of the present cross-

objections is nothing but delaying the proceedings.

4. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the order against which appeal is preferred by respondent No.3 is an order dated 11.04.2023 passed in OLR No.136 of 2019. It appears that the impugned order partly allowed the report and to that extent, the order was in favour of the present applicant. However, partially the order was against the applicant and therefore, the applicant had preferred MCA No.1 of 2023 for modification and/or review of the aforesaid order. It appears that the said application for review was filed within limitation. However, the same got disposed of by order dated 28.06.2024. It appears that thereafter the present cross-objections has been filed immediately the next day, i.e. to say on 22.07.2024.

5. The issue at the root is the OL Report praying inter alia for disbursement of the amount realized as per the Chartered Accountant’s report amongst the creditors of the company under liquidation (M/s.SN Computers Ltd.) as per Section 529A of the Companies Act. Order dated 11.04.2023, after taking into account the submissions and objections of the creditors of M/s.SN Computers Ltd. (in liquidation), directed the Chartered Accountant to prepare and submit a new report taking into account the objections of the creditors. It is against this order that respondent No.3 has filed an appeal.

6. It appears that against the same order, the applicant had also preferred MCA (for modification) No.1 of 2023 in OLR No.136 of 2019 and the same got disposed of on 28.06.2024. Over and above, it is also apparent that the applicant himself has filed an independent appeal being OJ Appeal No.9 of 20